The Hafiz Construction Company Pvt Ltd, Kashmir V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), Srinagar

ITA 435/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3321 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM DEB
• Assessee Lawyers: BASHIR AHMAD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. NO. 435/(ASR)/2017 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2012-13 HAFIZ CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. MA LINK ROAD, MUNNAWARABAD, SRINAGAR KASHMIR- 190001 [PAN: AACCH 0486J] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-WARD 3(1) RAJ BAGH SRINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. BASHIR AHMAD (C .A.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. GAUTAM DEB (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 08.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.11.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) JAMMU (CIT (A ) FOR SHORT) DATED 15.03.2017, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL C ONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREI NAFTER), DATED 27.03.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS DELAYED A PERIOD OF 19 DAYS. THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ON THE CONDONATI ON OF THE SAID DELAY (COPY OF THE CONDONATION PETITION DATED 07.08.2018 ON RECORD ), AND FINDING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AS REASONABLY EXPLAINING THE SAME, THE APPEAL WAS ADMITTED, AND THE HEARING IN THE MATTER PROCEEDED WITH. THE ASSESSMEN T HAS BEEN FRAMED AFTER ITA NO. 435/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) HAFIZ CONS TRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V. ITO 2 REGARDING THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS NOT RE LIABLE, INVOKING SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES CASE IN THIS REGARD IS T HAT AS NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ITS ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED (GD. 2). IN ANY CA SE, THE FLAT RATE OF 7% ON GROSS RECEIPT (OF RS.1639.52 LACS), IN VIEW OF ITS ACCOU NTS BEING DULY AUDITED, REFLECTING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 0.27%, IS ARBITRARY (GD.3). LASTLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE APPLICATION OF A NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% ON OTHE R INCOME (RS.15.18 LACS), UP FROM AT 8% BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), IS EXCESSIVE, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE IN THE MATTER (GD. 4). WE SHALL PROCEED IN SER ITAM. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, DESPITE BEING ALLOWED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF PURCHASES (CLAIMED AT RS.1212.60 LACS), SALARY & WAGES (RS. 213.05 LACS), FINANCIAL COST (RS.66.46 LACS), DIRECT EXPENSES (RS. 30.43 LACS), ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (RS. 69.58 LACS), DEBITED TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR. EVEN THE CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION (RS. 49.42 LACS) WAS NOT VERIFIABLE AS THE NATURE OF THE ADDITIONS T O THE FIXED ASSETS WERE NOT EXPLAINED OR SUBSTANTIATED BY FURNISHING THE NECESS ARY DETAILS/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. NO DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED EVEN WITH REGA RD TO THE UNSECURED LOANS DESPITE BEING CALLED FOR TIME AND AGAIN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ASSESSEES ACCO UNTS WAS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT VERIFIABLE AND, ACCORDINGLY, MER ITED REJECTION, I.E., IN VIEW OF THE NON-FURNISHING OF THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS RETURN OF INCOME. BEFORE, HOWEVER, PROCEEDING TO INVOKE SECTION 145(3), AND D ESPITE NOTICES U/S. 142(1) HAVING BEEN ISSUED ON EARLIER OCCASIONS, AS ON 08/9 .05.2014; 02.12.2014; ITA NO. 435/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) HAFIZ CONS TRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V. ITO 3 05.12.2014, AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH ORDER- SHEET ENTRIES, A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 03.02.2015 FOR MAK ING AN ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 BY THE AO, REPRODUCED AT PGS. 3-8 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. APART FROM A PART REPLY DATED 19.01.2015 (IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUISITION PE R ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 12.01.2015), SEEKING ADJOURNMENT (WHICH WAS GRANTED ) FOR THE BALANCE ACQUISITIONS, NO REPLY HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE A SSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE STOCK REGISTER FOR THE RELEVA NT YEAR AS WELL AS THE MONTHLY STATEMENT OF THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS (WIP), AS ALSO TH E QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE MAJOR CONSTITUENTS ON A MONTHLY BASIS; COPY OF TH E BANK ACCOUNT GIVING THE NARRATION OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED/ CREDITED. THIS W AS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT AS THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS DISCLOSED A UNREASONABLY LOW PR OFIT. DRAWING THE ASSESSEES ATTENTION TO THE DECISION IN ACTION ELECTRICAL V. CIT [2003] 258 ITR 188 (DEL), AND REJECTING THE ARGUMENT FOR APPLICATION OF THE RATE OF 6.5% , AS HELD FAIR AND REASONABLE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KAS HMIR IN CASE OF A CONTRACTOR, THE AO APPLIED A RATE OF 8% ON THE GROS S RECEIPT BY RELYING ON THE DECISION IN SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION CO. V. ASST. CIT (IN ITA NOS. 383 AND 384/CHD/2004 AND ORS.) WHICH STANDS CONFIRMED BY TH E HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (IN ITA NO. 183 OF 2007, DATED 1 4.05.2007). IN DOING SO, HE, HOWEVER, ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED ON ACCOUNT OF DEPARTMENTAL STORES (RS.237.31 LACS) AND SALES-TA X (RS.152.91 LACS), BE REDUCED WHILE RECKONING THE GROSS RECEIPT, WHICH WAS ACCORD INGLY TAKEN AT RS.1264.48 LACS, I.E., AS AGAINST THE BOOK FIGURE OF RS.1639.52 LACS , AND A NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% APPLIED, COMPUTING THE ASSESSABLE INCOME AT RS.101. 06 LACS. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND NO REASON NOT TO UPHOLD THE SAID REJEC TION IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, VIZ. BILLS AND VOUCHE RS, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS VARIOUS CLAIMS. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, CLAIMING TO BE OPERA TING IN REMOTE AREAS OF ITA NO. 435/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) HAFIZ CONS TRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V. ITO 4 SRINAGAR, WHERE THE PROFIT MARGINS ARE LOW DUE TO H ARD WEATHER CONDITIONS AND INTERMITTENT STOPPAGE OF WORK, LEADING TO HIGHER CO ST OF INPUT AND LABOR, HE REDUCED THE PROFIT RATE FROM 8% TO 7%, I.E., AS DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT BENCH IN THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS, SRINAGAR (IN ITA NO. 493/ASR/2010, DATED 11.05.2012), WHERE A PROFIT RATE OF 7%, SUBJECT TO NO FURTHER ALLOWANCES, WAS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE, APART FROM CONTRACT WORK, IS ALSO TRADING IN PIPES, YIELDING A TURNOVER OF RS.15.18 LACS, ON WHICH A PR OFIT RATE OF 10% WAS ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED BY HIM. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SEC OND APPEAL. 4. BEFORE US, THE THRUST OF THE ARGUMENTS BY THE LD . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, SH. BASHIR AHMED LONE , WAS THAT IT WAS WHOLLY INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHE D THE NECESSARY INFORMATION, AND TOWARD WHICH HE WOULD DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASS ESSEES REPLY DATED 19.01.2015 (PB PGS. 1-2) AND 12.02.2015 (I.E., IN RESPONSE TO THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.02.2015 (PB PGS. 3-4). THE AO, IF SINCERE, OUGHT TO HAVE REPRODUCED OR AT LEAST DISCUSSED THE ASSESSEES SAID REPLIES WHICH WERE PE RUSED DURING HEARING. TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH WITH REGARD TO THE MAINTENANCE O F STOCK RECORD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINED EVEN AS T HE QUANTITATIVE DETAIL OF THE CLOSING INVENTORY, VALUATING CLOSING STOCK AS PER G ENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, STOOD ENCLOSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 5.1 THE FIRST THING THAT STRIKES ONE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE NON-MAINTENANCE OF ANY STOCK RECORDS. AS EXPLAINED IN S.N. NAMASIVAYAM CHETTIAR V. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC), KEEPING A STOCK REGISTER IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE BECAUSE THAT IS A MEANS OF VERIFYING THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS BY HAVIN G A QUANTITATIVE TALLY. IF, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE MATERIAL, INCLUDING WAN T OF A STOCK REGISTER, IT IS FOUND THAT FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING THE CORRECT PROF ITS OF THE BUSINESS ARE NOT ITA NO. 435/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) HAFIZ CONS TRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V. ITO 5 DEDUCIBLE, THE OPERATION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE A CT WOULD BE ATTRACTED. VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, WHICH THEREFORE INCLUDES ITS QUA NTITY AS WELL, ON WHICH THE PER UNIT RATE IS TO BE APPLIED, IS AGAIN INTEGRAL TO AN Y ACCOUNTING PROCESS ( INVESTMENT LTD. V. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 533 (SC)). THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS M UST, THEREFORE, YIELD NOT ONLY THE QUANTITY HELD IN STOCK AS AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, BUT ALSO THE COST OF PRODUCTION (I.E., EXCLUDING INDIRECT COSTS) AT WHICH THE SAME , WHERE LESS THAN SALE REALIZATION, IS TO BE ADOPTED TO ARR IVE AT THE CORRECT PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS, EVEN AS EMPHASIZED BY THE HONBLE APEX CO URT IN, AMONG OTHERS, CIT V. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD .[1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC); CHAINRUP SAMPATRAM V. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 (SC). BOTH THESE ELEMENTS ARE MI SSING IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.2 THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS IF THE ASSESSEES ACCOUN TS CAN, UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, BE REGARDED AS YIELDING CORRECT OPERATING RESULTS, I.E., IS THE TRUE PROFIT (OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, LOSS) OF THE ASSESS EES BUSINESS DEDUCIBLE THERE-FROM, IMPLYING THE ACCOUNTS BEING CORRECT AND COMPLETE. W E THINK NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY QUANTITATIVE RECONCILIATION QUA MATERIAL INPUTS, WHICH CONSTITUTE, WITHOUT DOUBT, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF THE ASSES SEES PRODUCTION (CONSTRUCTION) COST. THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE OBTUSE IN VIEW OF THE EXTREMELY LOW PROFIT RATE, FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION IS FORTHCOMING, AND WHICH OUGH T TO IN FACT ARISE FROM THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS THEMSELVES. THAT IS, APART FROM THE FACT THAT NO STOCK REGISTER IS MAINTAINED AND WHICH ITSELF IS A SERIOUS INFIRMIT Y CONSIDERING THAT MATERIALS ARE ASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS, AND THEREFORE BECOM ES A NECESSARY ADJUNCT TO KEEP AN ACCOUNT THEREOF, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT EACH CONTRACT CONTAINS SPECIFICS OF THE VARIOUS MATERIALS TO BE USED. THE STRUCTURAL AN D OTHER, VIZ., DESIGN, DETAILS OF EACH DELIVERABLE, WHICH CANNOT BUT BE SPECIFIED, WO ULD DETERMINE THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF THE VARIOUS MATERIAL INPUTS THEREFOR. N O INFORMATION THEREON IS FORTHCOMING, SO THAT THERE IS NO MANNER IN WHICH TH E RELIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEES ITA NO. 435/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) HAFIZ CONS TRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V. ITO 6 ACCOUNTS WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIAL COST, AS DEBIT ED AND CLAIMED IN ACCOUNTS, CAN BE VERIFIED. MERE PRODUCTION OF PURCHASE VOUCHERS, I.E., ASSUMING SO, WOULD BY ITSELF NOT JUSTIFY THE INCURRING OF THE MATERIAL CO ST AS CLAIMED, WHICH CAN ONLY BE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL CONSUMPTION, AND WHICH IN TURN COULD ONLY BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION UNDERTAKEN AND BILLED OR OTHERWISE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AS BY WAY OF CLOSING STOCK. RATHER, THE VERY FACT O F THE ASSESSEE HAVING CLAIMED THE PURCHASE COST WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING THE USER OF TH E CORRESPONDING MATERIAL ON ITS CONTRACT/S, I.E., TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED, SO AS TO C LAIM ITS SET OFF AGAINST CONTRACT RECEIPT, IS REASON ENOUGH OR GROUND FOR REGARDING T HE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS AS NOT LIABLE FOR VERIFICATION, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS , AS AFORE-STATED, NOT ADDUCED ANY CORROBORATIVE OR ANCILLARY DATA/MATERIAL AS WELL. 5.3 THE MATTER, IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED, IS PRIM ARILY FACTUAL. THE ABSENCE OF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS, CORRELATING IT WITH THE PROJE CT PARAMETERS, IS A SERIOUS STRUCTURAL DEFECT IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS. THE ACCOUNTS CAN NOT, FOR THAT REASON, IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED, LEAD TO CORRECT COST DETERMINATION AND, THUS, THE TRUE OPERATING RESULTS OF THE BUSINESS. APART FROM DIRECT COST (OF CONSTRUCTION), WE DO NOT THINK THAT ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE R EVENUE QUA THE OTHER COSTS, I.E., SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING; THE MINOR DEFECTS NOT WARRAN TING A RESORT TO S. 145(3). WE EMPHASIZE ON COST AS THE REVENUE HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY DOUBT WITH REGARD TO SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE EXT REMELY LOW PROFIT RATE/S WITH, EXCLUDING THE OTHER INCOME RESULTING IN A LOSS (N EGATIVE PROFIT), FOR WHICH THERE COULD BE VALID REASON/S, HAS TO HAVE ITS EXPLANATI ON IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS. AND WHICH ARE PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT AND COMPLETE, FAIT HFULLY RECORDING THE TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS THE VALUATIONS OF VARIOUS A SSETS AND LIABILITIES, UNLESS THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE NOT SO AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID EXP LANATION/S NOT FORTHCOMING THERE- FROM. THE ONUS IN THIS REGARD IS ON THE REVENUE. WE HAVE, ON THE BALANCE, FOUND ITA NO. 435/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) HAFIZ CONS TRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V. ITO 7 THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS TO BE NOT SHOWN BY IT TO BE NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT AND IN-SO-FAR AS THEY DO NOT EXHIBIT OR RECORD THE BASIS FOR THE CLAIM OF THE MATERIAL COST, NOR INDEED THE BASIS OF VALUATIO N OF INVENTORY, WITH THE OPENING AND CLOSING INVENTORY (OF WIP) BEING, RATHER QUEERL Y, (ALMOST) THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS, UND ER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDER IT PROPER THAT THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUSTIFY ITS OPERATING RESULTS WI TH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL COST. IF THERE IS, AS NORMALLY OBTAINS, A CORRESPONDENCE BET WEEN MATERIAL AND LABOR COSTS, THE TWO WOULD THOUGH REQUIRE BEING CONSIDERED IN TA NDEM. THE OPENING AND CLOSING WIP, VALUATION OF WHICH IS ALSO TO BE VALID ATED (REFER: BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD . (SUPRA)), MAY ALSO STAND TO BE CORROBORATED BY OT HER RELEVANT MATERIALS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES VIZ., THE RUNNING ACCOUNT /S WITH THE CONTRACTEE/S, WHICH IS NORMALLY PREPARED BEFORE RAISING ANY BILL; THE P ERIODIC REPORTS GENERATED, ETC. THE AO SHALL ADJUDICATE PER A SPEAKING ORDER, ISSUI NG DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT, AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT WE WOULD HAVE, RATHER THAN REMITTING T HE MATTER, OURSELVES APPLIED THE PROFIT RATE OF 6.5% (ON CONTRACT RECEIPT), I.E., AS PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ONLY CONSIDERATION THAT PREVAILS WITH US, CONSTRAINING US FROM DOING SO, IS THAT THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS H AVE BEEN FOUND AS NOT RELIABLE PRINCIPALLY WITH REGARD TO MATERIAL COST, SO THAT I T IS THE GROSS (TRADING) MARGIN THAT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN AND, ACCORDINGLY, IS TO BE ESTIM ATED AND APPLIED. THE REVENUE HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY SERIOUS DOUBT IN RESPECT OF T HE INDIRECT COSTS, AND WHICH WOULD THEREFORE STAND TO BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED, OF COURSE SUBJECT TO ANY STATUTORY DISALLOWANCE/S, IF ANY. THE AO SHALL BASE HIS DECIS ION ON ALL RELEVANT MATERIALS, DULY CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE THEREWITH, AS ALSO AP PLY SEPARATE PROFIT RATES ON CONTRACT RECEIPT AND PIPE SALES, I.E., IN CASE THE TRADING PROFIT ON THE LATTER IS ALSO NOT, AS APPEARS TO BE, DETERMINABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ITA NO. 435/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) HAFIZ CONS TRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V. ITO 8 ASSESSEES RESULTS FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGES IN INPUT AND OUTPUT PRICES, WOULD ALSO BE R ELEVANT WHERE THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTS ARE NOT SIMILARLY IMBUED WITH DEFECT/S AS FOUND FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. 5.4 WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER 05, 2018 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 05.11.2018 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: HAFIZ CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. MA LINK ROAD, MUNNAWARABAD, SRINAGAR KASH MIR- 190001 (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-WAR D 3(1) RAJ BAGH SRINAGAR (3) THE CIT(APPEALS) JAMMU (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER